(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of import standards on the agricultural sector.
I am delighted to have secured today’s debate. I am very grateful to all colleagues who signed my application, and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time. I am happy to take interventions during my speech.
This debate is about the imbalance between our high domestic farming standards, which rightly prioritise animal welfare and the environment, and our imports, which often fall short. The Government’s animal welfare strategy, published just before Christmas, shows our ambition to protect all animals from needless cruelty and suffering. It is the biggest and most ambitious animal welfare programme in a generation. It includes measures to phase out the use of cages in farming, move away from using carbon dioxide to gas pigs, and introduce standards for the humane killing of fish. That is real progress and reflects overwhelming public support for safeguarding animal welfare, but when we improve domestic animal welfare standards, we have to be careful that we are not just exporting cruelty overseas.
British and Northern Irish farmers want animals to be treated well and to have good lives, but UK farmers are undermined by low-welfare imports. Many countries that we import animal products from do not share our standards, so those products are cheaper to produce and sell. Our farmers find themselves in an impossible situation, often unable to compete. Sow stalls, for example, are banned in the UK, but 95% of pork imports come from countries where they remain legal. British shoppers buying bacon have no way of knowing whether the pig that produced it spent its pregnancy in a cage so narrow that it could not turn around. It is the same for hens. Battery cages are already banned here. It is brilliant that we are committed to phasing out cages altogether—the Government should be congratulated on that—but long term, as a next step, we need to think about imports, too. The animal welfare strategy states that we will
“protect our most sensitive sectors and uphold animal welfare standards where we consider overseas produce has an unfair advantage.”
The Government recognise the issue. Now is the time to put that intention into practice.
Brexit has resulted in a massive increase in non-EU imports over the last few years. Although most EU imports are from countries with similar standards to the UK, that is often not the case for imports from non-EU countries. Ninety-five per cent of countries with access to our markets have lower welfare standards than we do. In just four years, from 2020 through to 2024, non-EU beef imports increased by 31%, poultry by 60%, pork by 81% and eggs by a staggering 228%. New trade deals for the UK are welcome, but we need them to uphold our high standards on both animal welfare and pesticides on crops. The price of a good deal cannot be access to the UK food market on more favourable terms than those available to our domestic farmers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward; he is absolutely right to underline these issues. Does he not agree that the recent EU-Mercosur deal opens the EU market to increased imports of agricultural products such as beef, poultry, sugar and ethanol under tariff-rate quotas? That may well mean sacrificing quality for cash, and may have an unwanted knock-on effect for our farmers. The hon. Gentleman is clearly trying to save and look after our farmers, who are already under immense pressure. On that deal, the UK Government must make representations to the EU regarding food safety.
Sam Carling
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes his point well. I will touch on EU regulations later.
Our Labour Government have a stellar record on this issue so far. In negotiations with India, we refused to lower protections on goods such as pork, chicken and eggs. In talks with Korea, we have secured new commitments on animal welfare, stronger than any it has signed up to in any previous trade agreement. The next step is to equalise all our import standards, rather than just the standards for new agreements. We cannot go back to full alignment with the EU, either. The EU still allows sow stalls, foie gras and fur farming, all of which fall short of our standards. Switzerland successfully negotiated an animal welfare carve-out in its sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the Government are seeking similar exemptions for animal welfare in the UK-EU negotiations. That would ensure we retained the ability to restrict imports that do not meet British welfare standards.
Let me address any arguments about the impact on food prices that changes could have. Over the past few years, food inflation has hit households across the country, and we all want prices to be more affordable, but I think we can all agree that that should not come at the expense of high standards. In the long run, undercutting our farmers will lessen our food security, leaving us more dependent on less reliable markets overseas, and as the Government have repeatedly said, food security is national security. That means that we must defend our farmers from a flood of low-quality imports.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions food imports and illegal imports. Next month will be the 25th anniversary of the devastating foot and mouth outbreak. Nowhere knows better than my Carlisle and north Cumbria constituency just what happens when foot and mouth takes hold. Does my hon. Friend agree that illegal meat imports heighten the risk of animal diseases such as foot and mouth, and that we need a co-ordinated strategy that involves the Government, local authorities and local port authorities to ensure that we counter such biosecurity risks?
Sam Carling
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the biosecurity aspect of this issue. My farmers, too, have been significantly impacted by foot and mouth disease in the past, and I know how important an issue that is. She puts her point on the record.
I was talking about potential arguments around food prices. Research from Animal Policy International shows that were we to act on this issue, the cost to consumers would actually be very small. Banning battery cage egg imports, for example, would cost just 2p to 4p per person per year. Since all major supermarkets have already committed to phasing out caged eggs, most consumers would feel zero impact, with battery cage imports going to independent retailers and food service as it stands. The boost to domestic farmers, by contrast, would be huge. UK egg farmers could gain up to £15 million annually if battery cage imports were banned. There would also be price stabilisation if we removed imports that undercut UK eggs by up to 20p per dozen. That does not cost the Exchequer; it would be quite a significant benefit to the Exchequer.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I was at Noble Foods last week, as part of the National Farmers Union’s food and farming fellowship programme. The issue, it was explained, is not just lower welfare standards. We need to ensure that eggs are safe. My hon. Friend is too young to remember it, but I remember the salmonella outbreak when I was a teenager. We have to be clear that food safety is as important for imported goods as it is for home-grown produce.
Sam Carling
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I remember doing that scheme myself last year. It was incredibly valuable, and I encourage other colleagues to do it. The NFU is doing a brilliant job. Polls show that consumers do not want low-welfare imports either; nine in 10 people support banning them. That may be unsurprising—we are a nation of animal lovers, after all—but that level of cross-societal support on an issue is rare and should be celebrated.
Some 81% of my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire is agricultural land, which means I spend a lot of time talking to farmers about what they need to thrive, and this issue comes up all the time. Members do not have to take my word on that; they can take the words of Lloyd and Mat, two farmers I know from Lodes End farm in Ramsey in my constituency:
“We grow high quality produce, to high standards. Sometimes, for little and often no profit. To see imported produce coming into our country that doesn’t meet the same standards that we have to achieve seems wrong. We want a level playing field and to feel that we are valued. So much effort, time, passion and pride goes into everything we grow on the farm. We not only grow quality produce but also do this while improving habitats for wildlife and reducing our environmental impact. Farmers do so much more than just produce the food we eat—we are an integral part of the communities we are proud to call home. We need to back British farming.”
Who could disagree with Lloyd and Mat on that? It is certainly not easy to be a farmer. Long, difficult work is set against razor-thin profit margins, unpredictable weather variability made worse by climate change, and distinct unfairness in the supply chain.
So what is the ask here? If we are doing so well as a Government on new trade deals, what change am I advocating for? We need legislative change to tackle the flaws in previous trade deals, which are damaging farmers like Lloyd and Mat. I am glad that the Government are backing farmers, and are allocating a record £11.8 billion to sustainable farming and food production over the course of this Parliament, but tackling the unfairness of low-welfare imports would make a real difference to farmers in my constituency and across the country. Indeed, just on Tuesday, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee took evidence on how important a fair approach on imports is to farm profitability.
This is not just about welfare standards; it is about environmental standards, too. Crops that have been treated with damaging pesticides are being sold in the UK, despite those pesticides being banned here. That is not good news for the environment. Imidacloprid— I hope I pronounced that correctly—a neonicotinoid highly toxic to bees, has been banned in the UK since 2018, yet it has been found in the UK on potatoes, peas and grapes imported from several countries.
As with lower-welfare imports, the UK will face pressure to weaken our domestic pesticide standards to secure new trade deals. Pesticide Action Network has highlighted potential pitfalls of the India trade deal, particularly as India allows the use of 62% more pesticides that are classed as highly hazardous than the UK. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is being kept under review.
We know what happens when we compromise our standards for trade; I am afraid the Conservatives did it often. The previous Government’s flawed Australia agreement increased sheepmeat imports by 162%, despite many Australian lambs being subjected to live skin cuttings without anaesthetic in a painful process known as mulesing, which was banned in the UK by the previous Labour Government. Our sheep farmers certainly did not thank the Conservatives for the impact that trade deal had, and is still having, on their livelihoods.
With the US reportedly demanding that the UK adopt lower standards in trade talks, I am glad that we have been clear in response that our food standards are a red line, and that we have committed to high food, animal welfare and environmental standards in any deal. That is exactly the approach we need, but we must be consistent about it. Change has support across the board, notably from the NFU and animal welfare bodies like Animal Policy International, both of which I thank for their ongoing work in this area. It also has strong support across the political divide, with massive majorities of Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters supporting banning imports of animal products produced by farming methods that are banned in the UK.
What does change look like in practice? All campaigners and the public want is consistency—to ensure that all agricultural products sold in the UK, whether domestic or imported, adhere to British welfare and quality standards. If it is not good enough to be produced in Britain, it should not be sold here, either. Legally, there is precedent in several areas. Slaughter standards are consistent; certification is required to ensure that imports are slaughtered to standards that are at least equivalent to UK standards. Shark fin imports and exports are completely banned; the Ivory Act 2018 bans the import of ivory products; and we ban the import and sale of cat and dog fur. There are numerous precedents that can be applied here, and it makes sense to do so across the board.
World Trade Organisation case law says that the UK can apply its animal welfare standards to imports, and the UK Trade and Agriculture Commission has confirmed that the UK’s free trade agreements do not prevent us from implementing stricter import regulations based on welfare standards. Will the Minister consider legislation to require imported animal products to meet British welfare standards, as is already the case for slaughter standards?
Aligning imports with our domestic standards is backed by farmers and consumers, backed across the political spectrum, and backed by rural, environmental and animal welfare organisations. We have strong legislative precedent, and we have legal clarity. We know that the impact on prices would be negligible, and that our economy would benefit. We would have confidence in the welfare of our animal products, and in the quality of fruit and vegetables on shop shelves. These are big, tangible benefits. Taking action would do so much for Lloyd and Mat in my constituency, and for thousands of others like them across Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This Government have shown promising signs so far. Let us build on that and take the next crucial step.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I will start by setting the scene to explain why we import so much food and why we are not self-sufficient.
We are never going to be self-sufficient in food—certainly not in bananas or avocados, but not in some meat sectors either. Although we produce very large quantities of lamb and beef, we are only 58% self-sufficient in pork; I think the figure is a little higher in poultry. If we were 100% self-sufficient in pork, we would have to export so much more to achieve a carcase balance and achieve value for the farmer from the pig that it would be quite a challenge. As a great nation of bacon butty lovers, we eat a lot of bacon, to the extent that we have to import a certain amount. We are therefore exporting other cuts of a pig, such as belly pork to Europe and fifth quarter to China. That all adds value and achieves a better price for our hard-working farmers.
It is important to point out that the sanitary and phytosanitary agreements that we have been talking about do not cover some of the welfare issues that we have discussed, which are separate. The challenge of those agreements, as our trade negotiators are very aware, is that a country can fall foul of World Trade Organisation rules by telling another country what welfare standards it expects it to employ, so it can find itself in difficulties. In making any trade agreements with other countries, we need to be conscious that we should allow market access only where we are satisfied that welfare standards have been met.
At the moment, when it comes to EU-UK import-export relations and livestock and meat, we are at a relatively similar welfare standard. I mean no criticism of the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling)—it is all quite technical—but sow stalls are not the same as farrowing crates. The sow stall ban in 1999 was a challenge because the EU did not implement it immediately, and that caused us a lot of problems. Farrowing crates are a topic of conversation at the moment. They are part of the animal welfare strategy that the Government have published, and the industry has been working very closely on them for a number of years. About 60,000 traditional farrowing crates are in place in the UK. To convert to a free farrowing system would require planning permission; the crates cannot just be pulled out and replaced. It will be a huge challenge.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that the issue with the sow stall ban in 1999 was that there was not a sufficient transition period. I hesitate to say this, but I think she is experienced enough to have been here at the time. [Interruption.] Yes, she was here at the time. We lost 50% of the British pig industry. That did not mean that we ate 50% less pork; it meant that we imported a load more from abroad.
Whatever happens and whatever measures are taken on pigs, poultry or anything else, it is really important that we do not reduce our domestic food production, lower our food security, reduce British jobs in farming and replace them with jobs abroad and meat produced abroad, often to standards that we would not like. That will be a key issue as the Government take forward their animal welfare strategy. They must ensure that we do not diverge from or move too far ahead of European Union producers, because we are reliant on a huge amount of meat from the European Union. If we put greater production costs on our farmers, we will disadvantage them and naturally they will be displaced. It is a really important issue.
The hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire was right to raise the US. The US still has sow stalls, which were banned in this country 27 years ago. The US does not have ambitious targets to reduce antibiotics, as we do. The UK pig industry has reduced antibiotics by 69% since 2015, so we have been making real progress without the intervention of Government, and there is a recognition that we need to use fewer antibiotics. The issue is that it adds costs and lowers production levels because producers are not able to use outdated methods, particularly sow stalls. That puts us at a disadvantage with some trading partners.
In my previous life, before being elected to this place, I was closely involved with the negotiations on the Canada deal. That was a similar challenge: Canada has methods that we would not accept in certain areas. In the Australia deal, pigs were not included at all because we felt that the welfare standards were not sufficiently high enough for us to import them. The Minister is definitely aware of that. It is important that we all work together to ensure that in any moves we make on trade and food imports, we are always mindful of protecting the great British farmer.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
In Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, agriculture is a key part of our local economy and our identity. The Isle of Axholme alone consists of 50,000 acres and is characterised by a mix of intensive agricultural land, including significant arable land, and a historical, unique system of open-field strip farming, particularly around parishes such as Haxey and Epworth. One farmer in Ealand categorically assures me that we have the best soil for growing the tastiest spuds in the world—so for the Burns night festivities this weekend, Madam Deputy Speaker, you know where to shop for neeps and tatties.
No one takes up life as a farmer because they want an easy time. Farming is hard. Farmers pour their heart and soul into their land; I know that from my wife’s family. I see it from my window at home: they are up before the break of dawn and out after the owls have emerged. My farmers meet the rules—they pay for assurance, inspections and traceability—but when the time comes to sell their crops, their meat and their products, they find that they are not on a level playing field. They are undercut by imports produced to lower standards at a lower cost. That is just not right.
Over the past year or so, I have spent a significant amount of time understanding the issue. I have been out with farmers in my constituency. I have visited farms across Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, have attended roundtables with local farmers and have held surgeries. I have attended farmers’ shows, markets and fairs and have hosted several here in Westminster. I hope soon to meet representatives of Epworth and District young farmers club, which is raising money for the Yorkshire air ambulance and the Lindsey Lodge hospice. In the autumn, I will attend the first ever Isle country show. I have spent time listening directly to the concerns that farmers have raised. Today, I want to feed back clearly to the Minister what they are telling me and what we can do to support them. I will give some examples that they have shared with me.
Let us start with grain. Grain merchants can import grain that is not Red Tractor-assured. Too often, it arrives without the paperwork that we would expect for something that goes into our food chain. UK grain is grown to higher standards. That really matters, but our grain also costs more to produce, so when imports come in cheaper it drives prices below UK production costs. When UK-assured grain is then bulked out with imported grain, it makes a mockery of the premium that our farmers have earned through the quality of their production.
We can grow excellent potatoes in this country, yet we are seeing vast quantities being imported from as far as Portugal, simply to shave costs. That is madness when we factor in the distance, the carbon and the message that it sends to domestic producers who are doing the right thing day in, day out. It is the same story with beef. When we import beef produced to lower welfare standards at a scale that drives down unit costs, we are effectively punishing British farmers for maintaining higher welfare standards and traceability.
There are double standards on crop protection. Oilseed rape became far harder to grow successfully here after key plant protection products were banned, leaving growers exposed to pests such as cabbage stem flea beetles, yet imported crops can be treated with products that our farmers are not allowed to use. That is not a level playing field; it is a tilted one. I will keep repeating that point.
Finally, I turn to sugar. We have sugar beet growers close to processing plants in this country who sustain jobs and local supply chains, yet sugar cane can be imported from countries in which it has been treated with chemicals that are banned here, and then be processed in the UK. I am told that it then ends up on our supermarket shelves with packaging covered in a Union flag that implies British provenance.
I call on the Government to do three things for our farming community; I would love the Minister to respond if she can. We need stronger equivalence in our import standards: if a product cannot be produced here under the rules, it should not be able to undercut our farmers on our shelves. We need robust enforcement and paperwork checks at the border, because standards on paper are meaningless without compliance in practice. We need honest, clear labelling that protects British trademarks and gives consumers the information they need, not marketing that blurs the origin or standards of what they are buying.
UK farmers are frequently inspected, licensed and held to higher welfare and environmental rules. That approach delivers food that is safe, traceable and trusted. The least we can do is ensure that our trade and import regime rewards their efforts rather than undermining them. Let us help our farmers to plough their fields successfully in future by levelling the playing field for them right now.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; as most hon. Members know, I am a dairy and sheep farmer from west Wales. I am very aware of the volatility of markets and its effect on our sector. Sheep and beef prices have been steady for the past year or so, but dairy has absolutely crashed since August or September: it is down by between 9p and 12p a litre, which is about 25% to 30% of income, with inputs remaining exactly the same. That is unsustainable.
The welfare standards to which we adhere when producing food here is exemplary, and standards continue to rise. However, while setting even higher standards at home, we allow the import of products produced in countries with lower standards. Animal welfare strategies, such as the one introduced for England last month, highlight the link between welfare standards and food security. The public agree that imported food must be of a standard equal to home-produced food, but that has to be mirrored in the trade agreements that are negotiated. Our farming community cannot be traded off, as has happened in the American deal. The farming community deserves no less than equality in standards, and my Caerfyrddin farmers certainly deserve no less.
Interestingly, the Countryside Alliance acquired some figures through a freedom of information request to see how many local authorities and Government Departments procured UK and local food, and whether those organisations had a policy to buy local food. Only one Department, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, had a policy, and only one other Department, the Department of Health and Social Care, could say how much local food it procured. Of the 215 local authorities, only 26 could provide information on the amount of UK or local food they procured. That really is not good enough. We produce only 60% of what we consume. If we support locally produced food, we will import less.
Locally in Caerfyrddin, Carmarthenshire county council is working hard to ensure that we put locally produced food on the public plate. That work is being done on a council-owned farm, in partnership with Social Farms and Gardens, Castell Howell Foods, Hywel Dda university health board and others, to give top-quality vegetables to our children and elderly. If we can do it in Carmarthenshire, surely more councils can support our local agricultural community in that way. We all need and deserve sustainably produced, fresh, nutritionally dense food.
We are all aware that we import about 40% of the food that we consume, but none of this food is subject to minimal animal welfare or environmental production standards. Input standards are almost entirely related to product safety and the threat to human health and the environment, rather than to how they are produced. Establishing animal welfare and environmental core standards will ensure that the food we eat, whether it is produced at home or abroad, meets the high expectations of British consumers. With core standards implemented alongside balanced and commercially meaningful trade deals, not only can international trade drive economic growth, but it can help our farmers to become sustainable, resilient and supported businesses. Diolch.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for securing this vital debate and for his thoughtful speech, and I extend that to other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, too. It is an important opportunity for us to consider an issue that sits at the intersection of the food we eat, trade, animal welfare and the sustainability of our rural economy.
The UK’s post-Brexit free trade agreements have rightly opened up new opportunities for British exporters, but they have also raised concerns about how imports are produced, particularly as we look to increase our welfare ambitions. By cutting tariffs on agricultural products from partner countries, those deals can unintentionally allow products to enter the UK that are produced to far lower animal welfare or environmental standards than those expected of our farmers. These are not minor issues; they go to the heart of how we support our brilliant domestic producers and how we maintain public confidence in the food we eat.
Practices that are banned or tightly regulated in the UK—conventional battery cages for hens, sow stalls, tail docking of pigs, and certain pesticides—remain permitted elsewhere, and those products inevitably end up on our supermarket shelves. Without clear protections, imports produced in that way risk undercutting our farmers, and they undermine the principle that high welfare production should be the norm, not just for British producers.
The Trade and Agriculture Commission, which advises the Government on trade deals, has highlighted those differences and warned that they have both ethical and economic consequences. British farmers investing in high-welfare sustainable production should not be left competing on an uneven playing field against imports produced more cheaply by cutting corners. That applies to raw materials as well as finished products.
On Tuesday, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that I sit on heard from the formidable Baroness Batters about her profitability review. She mentioned a comment made by Sir Liam Fox, who, as Trade Secretary, argued that the UK should shift post Brexit to importing cheaply produced raw materials and then add value to them under the Union flag. I agree with Baroness Batters that we should reject that reductive view of the value of the excellent raw materials that our British farmers produce. We should be proud of and protect them.
Many organisations, including the National Farmers Union and the National Pig Association, have called for core standards for imported agrifood products. These standards would ensure that all food sold in the UK, whether domestic or imported, meets the welfare, environmental and production standards expected by the British public. It is entirely reasonable for consumers to expect that pork, beef, eggs or poultry produced abroad meet very similar, or the same, requirements as those produced here.
Two other realities that we have to confront in this debate and which the all-party parliamentary group on UK food security, which I chair, has discussed at length are the cost of food and keeping our shelves stocked. As someone who represents a constituency with pockets of deep deprivation, including neighbourhoods that are among the 5% most deprived in the country, I am concerned that a rapid move to equalise all import standards could have a knock-on effect on food prices, which, as I am sure hon. Members right across the House will be aware, have been very high, particularly over the last five years. Equally, we do not want to see a repeat of the empty shelves that we all remember from the pandemic, which brought home the fragility of just-in-time food supply chains when unexpected disruption hits. As my hon. Friend said, these issues are interlinked, and the more we undermine our domestic supply, the more prices will go up and the more reliant we will become on overseas imports.
The Government have recognised these varied concerns. In the trade strategy published last June, it was clear that the Government will uphold high animal welfare standards and will not lower food standards to accommodate imports. It explicitly acknowledged practices that are not allowed domestically, such as sow stalls and battery cages, and committed to assessing whether those imports have an unfair advantage. I hope it will find that they do.
Where necessary, powers such as quotas, exclusions and safeguards will be used to protect domestic sectors that are most at risk. That approach is welcome. It strikes a balance between maintaining the benefits of free trade and ensuring that British farmers are not undermined. But as we have seen in previous trade deals, including in discussions with the United States, it is vital that those protections are clear, enforceable and applied consistently. Without them, we risk creating a market where the lowest welfare products set the price and not the highest standards.
Equally important is transparency for consumers. Recent polling by Opinium for Humane World for Animals shows that the British public often misunderstand what products labelled as, for example, “welfare assured” or that carry the Red Tractor logo actually guarantee. For example, 65% of people incorrectly believe that “welfare assured” prohibits keeping pigs and chickens in cages and 67% believe it prohibits the use of CO2 for slaughter. If consumers discovered that labelling does not match the reality they think it does, nearly half would feel misled, angry or disappointed.
Mandatory labelling is vital. It will protect consumers, support domestic producers and ensure that imported products adhere to the same high standards—or at least that we can see if they do not. Public support for stronger labelling measures is overwhelming, with 77% backing a new animal welfare labelling law and three quarters supporting stricter enforcement by trading standards and the Advertising Standards Authority to prevent misleading claims.
I acknowledge that getting labelling right will require many tricky balances, and that there is only so much space on a packet. I do not downplay those issues, but by combining robust import standards with transparent labelling, the Government could ensure that trade works for farmers, for animals and for consumers alike, reinforcing confidence in the British food system while maintaining fairness and ethical standards.
Charlie Dewhirst
The hon. Member highlights an important point about the challenges of potential welfare labelling. If imports are not labelled in the same way, as they probably would not be, British producers could be put at a disadvantage when it comes to what a consumer might think about how something has been produced. We must be conscious of that.
Josh Newbury
The hon. Member is absolutely right that we need to be careful how labelling will affect imported goods and therefore what the consumer sees in the supermarket. My take is that, if we educate consumers on the labelling for our standards and, if those labels are absent, what the implications might be for imported products, we can better inform them and protect our domestic producers. That will inevitably have to go along- side any improved labelling for our products.
Sam Carling
Does my hon. Friend agree that if we can unify our import standards with our domestic standards, that problem disappears in many ways? The standards will be the same and therefore we will not have labelling that might undermine our farmers.
Josh Newbury
I agree with my hon. Friend, but I also point out that there will inevitably be some producers who want to produce to higher standards than the minimum, particularly in this country. They should be fairly recognised and rewarded for that, so there will always be the need for a clear and transparent labelling system. Getting that right will be tricky, but it is important that farmers who are producing to higher standards get fair recompense for that.
I hope the Minister can update the House on where work on labelling has got to, so that consumers can make informed choices for themselves and their families. Ultimately, this issue is about more than import and export figures on a screen; it is about fairness for our farmers, transparency for consumers, and the sustainability of our whole food system. As this House debates the impact of import standards, I urge the Government to continue their firm commitment to core standards and to ensure that free trade agreements work for farmers, for consumers and for British values alike.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I thank the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for leading this important debate.
The UK prides itself on having some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and I welcomed last month’s animal welfare strategy, which promises to go further still. I particularly welcome the planned ban on farrowing crates for sows and cages for hens—crucial steps forward in our animal protection in this country—and have called on the Government to set out clear timescales for their delivery and support for farmers during the transition.
The animal welfare strategy reflects years of campaigning by animal protection organisations and growing public demand for change, and marks a significant step forward, with real commitments on animal welfare standards—but there are some glaring gaps. What is illegal to produce here because it is too cruel remains legal to import and sell. That is incoherent, undermines public confidence and leaves higher-welfare British farmers facing unfair competition. The principle should be straightforward: if a practice is too cruel for food produced in Britain, it should be too cruel for food imported into Britain.
Yet reality tells a different story. Some 97% of our pork imports come from countries where sow stalls are still legal, despite the practice having been illegal here for 25 years. Battery cages may be banned here but they remain widespread elsewhere, and imports of eggs have increased more than twelvefold in the last year alone. Since the Australia trade deal was signed, lamb imports have risen by over 160%, despite cruel practices such as mulesing—illegal here—remaining common there.
This is not a niche concern. According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Compassion in World Farming, 95% of countries with UK market access have lower animal welfare standards than the UK. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs data shows that non-EU imports of eggs have more than tripled since 2020, poultry imports have risen by 60%, and pork by over 80%. In trade discussions with the United States Administration, Ministers focused on food safety and sanitary standards, but that focus risks leaving a huge loophole for imports produced in ways that would be illegal here, widening the welfare gap instead of closing it. While the UK will rightly maintain its ban on hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed chicken coming from the US, it is
“looking to compromise in other areas”.
Higher-welfare British farmers are paying the price. The NFU has been clear: farmers want trade deals, but not at the expense of being undercut by food produced to standards that would be illegal on their own farms. Over 90% of British livestock farmers support restricting low-welfare imports, and the public agree: more than four in five people support banning imports produced using methods outlawed here. We need a statutory requirement that animal products sold in the UK, whether produced here or imported, meet British welfare standards. We also need mandatory welfare labelling that applies equally to imports. The animal welfare strategy’s consultation commitments on that do not go far enough.
In conclusion, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Government intend to close this loophole and ensure that our individual trade deals and overall policy fully reflect the ambition that is rightly included in the animal welfare strategy. The standards of our higher-welfare British farmers at home should not be undermined by lower welfare standards abroad. We should not be importing cruelty, and our farmers deserve a level playing field.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, isn’t it wonderful to get to Thursday and find that business has run fast, so there is no time limit on speeches and some time to go? Rejoice! [Interruption.] I shall rejoice; whether others do is a different matter.
This has been an excellent debate, and I particularly enjoyed the speech from the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies). I went through her constituency last summer on the way to go and see my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell). Next time, I shall stop off for a cuppa and see her in action. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), I married a woman from a family of farmers, so I share his experience and interest in these issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) gave an excellent speech to open the debate, but I want to focus my remarks on the farming industry and the brilliant farmers in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Like my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), I am on the National Farmers’ Union fellowship scheme this year. I am also the vice-chair of the international trade and investment all-party parliamentary group.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as you have heard me say before, Newcastle-under-Lyme is an age-old market town in north Staffordshire, surrounded by the green, rolling hills for which England—and Wales, of course—is known and of which we are all proud. I promised every single farmer I met in the months and years before the general election, and in the time since, that I will do whatever I can to support farmers in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire and across our country. That means defending our standards every single day. That is why this debate is important, so I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire for securing it.
That is also why I am pleased that we got to the right place on agricultural property relief and the inheritance tax threshold for farmers and farming families. There has been much commentary on this issue and much genuine concern felt by farmers in my constituency and up and down the United Kingdom. A number of us raised it loudly, repeatedly and, thankfully, effectively. I thank the NFU and all the farmers in my patch who spoke out, and I am grateful to colleagues in government for ensuring we are now in the right place. It is also why I set up my farmers’ forum soon after the general election, because after years of being let down and forgotten, I wanted my farmers back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme to get the hearing they deserve, the support they need and the opportunities to thrive, to keep us fed and to keep going.
There is so much in our United Kingdom that we should be proud of, and Britain’s farmers are just one example. I feel sure that our farmers in Staffordshire, and particularly those in Newcastle-under-Lyme, are leading the way. They are the backbone of our food system. They tend to our land, they produce the clear majority of what ends up on our dinner tables, and they allow us all to feel a sense of pride. Their contribution underpins our food security and strengthens rural economies.
The Speeds at Betley Court farm are responsible for a brilliant fireworks display in November each year, and the Betley show each August, and all colleagues—including you, Madam Deputy Speaker—would be welcome to join the festivities this year. At the Kennerley’s Plum Tree Park farm, grass-fed lamb boxes are supplied seasonally, and there is a dog playground; they have diversified their offer to consumers, their neighbours and our community, and helped to put our part of the world on the map. I hope the Minister will come to see those success stories in Newcastle-under-Lyme for herself before too long.
I am firmly of the view that we should always buy British, as that is smart and necessary for our farmers and for the future of British farming. It is also good for our pubs, shops and restaurants, and I hope that Front-Bench colleagues—not this Minister as there is plenty for her to do, but others—will do what the previous Conservative Government did not do: get a hold of the challenges facing the hospitality sector in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across the nation, and ensure that support for our town centres and local businesses is delivered speedily.
As I make that call to support those businesses, which are in turn supported by our farmers and local farming sector, I also think about brilliant local businesses that stand with our farmers every day. Plant and Wilton in Newcastle-under-Lyme town centre is a wonderful family butchers, which of course gets meat from farms both locally and up and down the kingdom. Pubs like the Swan in Betley and the Albert in town are moments away from farms that are tended to by brilliant farmers, some of whom, I suspect, enjoy a pint or two from time to time.
At the Butchers Arms in Audley, Mark the landlord is known for his excellent cooking prowess—again using British food from British farms, many of which are located in Staffordshire. It is similar at the Archer in Wolstanton. When we think about the standards required for the meat and other food that we eat in the pubs I have referred to, and that people enjoy up and down the country, it is important that we make the case for the highest and strongest British standards every step of the way.
Lee Pitcher
When we talk about food standards, we are also talking about the kind and quality of food that we get in our public services. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as contracts for Government services fade out, one of the best things we can do is to ensure that, going forward, at least 50% of food provided in those services is sourced locally?
Adam Jogee
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Royal Stoke University hospital, which is across the road from my constituency border but is staffed by and serves the vast majority of my constituents, is ensuring that its patients and workers enjoy the highest standards and the best of British food. I feel sure that the Minister will agree that that is an excellent point when she sums up the debate.
Constantly thinking about the impact and benefits of the highest British standards leads me to highlight how important it is to remember that the issues facing the agriculture sector and British farmers—who work day in, day out to deliver those highest standards—did not start in July 2024. The price of milk, trade deals that undercut our farmers and access to labour are just some of the long-standing challenges that, as the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin pointed out, farmers like her, and many in Newcastle-under-Lyme who are working to the highest of British standards, have been forced to endure for far too long.
Across the last three years of the previous Government there was a £358 million underspend in the agricultural budget. I hope the Minister will confirm that under this Labour Government, farmers will always receive the support they need not just to maintain the highest of British standards, but to ensure that food production is more sustainable and profitable. While the Conservatives sold out and undercut farmers in trade deals—we must not forget that—I urge my colleagues in the Government to continue with their principled approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme pointed out, we must always back British standards, we must always back British food and we should never bargain either away. We must never sign trade deals that leave our farmers, including those in Newcastle-under-Lyme, exposed or allow lower quality imports to undercut what British producers deliver day in, day out and to the best of standards.
There is big and serious export potential for British food. I want people from across the world to buy British, to eat British and to benefit from the highest of British standards. I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Commonwealth. I know that the Minister and the Secretary of State are planning targeted overseas missions, so I urge them and other colleagues to look at the Commonwealth, with which we already have age-hold historical ties, as the default partner of choice. As we look to ensure that we export British goods that have been produced to the highest of standards, we will benefit greatly from that partnership.
I suggest that the Minister speaks to colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that all our trade envoys are banging the drum for British food, because we know that it is produced to the highest of standards—standards that the rest of the world can only look to for inspiration. While Scottish salmon is the kingdom’s leading food export, I hope that the Minister will also do whatever she can to help me to increase exports of Staffordshire oatcakes, because the world deserves nothing less.
To put it simply, we must protect our farmers, uphold our standards, and back British food at home and abroad. Notwithstanding the challenges over agricultural property relief, I welcome the steps being taken by the Government to give British farmers the tools, investment and confidence that they need to thrive. We are creating a new farming and food partnership board, chaired by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that will bring together farmers, processors, retailers and the Government, so that those working on our land have a real voice in how policy is made to ensure that we always maintain the highest of British standards.
We rely on trade to complement what we grow here, to give families year-round choice, to help stabilise prices, to protect our supply chains when global shocks hit and—I know the Minister will agree—to ensure that the highest of British standards are maintained and supported. We will not always get everything right and nor will we always make everyone happy, but we do need to listen to our farmers and our food producers. They are the ones flying the flag for the highest of standards, so we need to ensure that they are not undercut when food with lower standards comes from elsewhere. My message to farmers and producers in Newcastle-under-Lyme is that this Government hear them loud and clear, and they have our full support.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding time for the debate to proceed.
The UK agricultural sector experienced an enormous shift on leaving the European Union. There was simply no plan in place for farming and international trade, and the post-Brexit era has seen seven DEFRA Secretaries of State and five Prime Ministers. As Baroness Batters said in her recent farming profitability review, this has led to a complete lack of constant political direction at a time when farming needed it the most. Nothing has done more to increase the cost of farming and to reduce farm incomes than the Conservative’s botched Brexit, and it has harmed and undermined protections for animal welfare and the environment.
The Conservative Government did not stop there. In addition, they set a dangerous precedent for future trade agreements in how they went about their negotiations. Stripping away parliamentary scrutiny and forcing terrible deals through has given unfair advantage to imports from countries with much poorer standards, which would fail to meet the high-quality British production standards. The Liberal Democrats demand that every new trade deal should be subject to proper scrutiny, but this Government’s refusal to do so in their latest trade agreement with President Trump—despite calling for proper oversight while in opposition—is a reminder that Parliament has not yet taken back control.
I am proud to come from a farming background. My family has farmed in and around Somerset for more than 250 years, and my brother continues the family business. Like all farmers, he takes great pride in what he does. Despite much turbulence in the industry, farmers work hard to provide the nation with food for our tables. In large part, they remain resilient to most market shocks, but bad trade deals have allowed butter and cheese imports from Australia, New Zealand and the United States to start to land on our shores in increasing volumes. These products are flooding our domestic markets at the expense of British farmers, yet they are under no obligation to have point of origin labelling. That has inevitably led to UK milk buyers slashing farm gate milk prices to a level that is simply unacceptable, and which is unsustainable.
I recently met Rich Clothier MBE, the managing director of family-run Wyke Farms near Bruton. I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will join me in congratulating Rich on recently being appointed an MBE for services to sustainable agriculture and food production in the King’s new year’s honours list. Wyke Farms is one of the UK’s largest independent cheese producers. It has been crafting award-winning cheddar and butter from Somerset for over 160 years, and under Rich’s guidance it now exports products to more than 160 countries.
Rich recently told me:
“People want to eat food produced to British standards of welfare…environmental and food safety…But currently they have no way of knowing…and being able to make that choice.”
That is what is important: to ensure that our consumers know what they are buying and are able to make that choice. However, because of Brexit, the Government are forced into agreeing poor trade deals that continue to undermine British farmers and the food that they produce. Over the past few months, milk prices have been in freefall, leaving many dairy farmers on a financial cliff edge. Milk prices are currently well below the cost of production; we have seen thousands of litres of milk being thrown down the drain, and I fear that there will be much more to come over the next few months if we do not do something about it.
Given the absence of point of origin labelling in our trade policy, products are offered to customers without appropriate labelling, allowing them to masquerade as UK-produced. That is why I introduced the Dairy Farming and Dairy Products Bill, which would force the Government to ensure that any trade deals do not negatively impact on British dairy farmers.
Liberal Democrats are keen to ensure that farmers and growers receive fair treatment in the supply chain, as existing protections are no longer sufficient to tackle unfair practices by large buyers. We want to reform and strengthen the Groceries Code Adjudicator, merging it with the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator and giving it greater powers and resources. What is required is a sensible trade policy that ensures British consumers are protected from imported food produced at lower standards—standards at which it would be illegal for British farmers to operate.
Liberal Democrats are champions of free trade; we know the benefits that it brings to British farmers and businesses. But we also know that regulatory alignment is key. We cannot allow British farmers to be undercut by cheaper imports. However, Canada will soon ratify UK membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—which, worryingly, could open the doors to products from farming systems that are banned here and further undermine British farming.
Battery cages have rightly been banned in the UK since 2012, but the CPTPP could allow Mexican farmers who use battery cages to export a large number of eggs to the UK. Those eggs will be produced in a manner that would simply be illegal here. This would force farms such as Silverthorne Farm near Milborne Port, which has 15,000 hens that are all free to roam over its 32 acres, to compete with lower standard importers that operate at a fraction of the cost.
The Government have recently released their animal welfare strategy after promising the largest increase in standards in a generation. While the Liberal Democrats have long called for, and support, many of the measures that the Government have announced, the strategy lacks a commitment to protecting UK food security and farmers through trade policy. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has stated that it will consider whether overseas producers have an “unfair advantage”; unfortunately, it is clear that the answer is yes, they do. It is worth recalling that one former Environment Minister slammed the UK-Australia deal, saying that the UK
“gave away far too much for far too little”,
and described it as “not very good” for British farmers. I am glad that the Government are prepared to use the “full range of powers” at their disposal to protect the most sensitive sectors, as there is little doubt that this is needed. The Government must urgently renegotiate the Australia and New Zealand trade deals, so that we can uphold high standards on food safety, animal welfare, health and the environment. If these standards cannot be met, we should withdraw from such deals.
The Liberal Democrats are clear that a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU is an absolute priority, so that we can cut red tape, reduce checks, and lower costs for exporters. We have called for an agreement to be delivered as soon as possible. It should be modelled on the EU-Swiss veterinary deal, and should guarantee enhanced access to the single market, with minimal checks. We also want a bespoke UK-EU customs union, so that we can rebuild our economy and support British producers, and the tariff-free movement of goods between EU member states, in order to strengthen domestic economic growth. A far more ambitious, free and fair trade deal with Europe is an absolute necessity. It would give the Government some of the financial scope that they need to keep a few more of their promises to improve our vital public services. However, any upcoming agreement poses some risk to British farmers, as any agreement could limit the UK’s ability to apply our own standards for imports. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for us to replicate the Swiss model, which is based on mutual recognition of animal health measures.
The Conservatives sold British farmers down the river in their desperation to agree trade deals by arbitrary deadlines, but there is now an opportunity to properly protect British welfare standards in all future deals. That must be at the forefront of this Government’s mind in all future negotiations, as it is critical for UK farming, food security and national security.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I start by thanking the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for securing this debate and opening it so excellently. It has offered Members from across the House the opportunity to discuss an issue that is central to our national interests and our values. The speeches we have heard today reflect a deep commitment across this House to our farmers, our food standards, animal welfare, the environment, and the integrity of British agriculture.
We have heard a range of contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst)—to whom I pay tribute for his expertise on the pig industry, and whom I thank for his work on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—talked about the complexities of the global trade in meat, the importance of food security, and a sensible transition on husbandry regulations. He also touched on inappropriate antibiotic use, which I will speak about in due course. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) talked about the importance of the grain and sugar sectors in his part of the world, and of transparency in labelling. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) and to her family on the farm. It is brilliant that she brings that expertise to the House of Commons, and I thank her for all she does. She talked about welfare standards, food security, and the importance of local food procurement.
The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), whom I also thank for his excellent work on the EFRA Committee, talked about the importance of food security and, again, transparency in food labelling. The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), who is a proud advocate for high animal welfare standards, talked about the important bans that we uphold on hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed poultry; I will touch on those in due course. Finally, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) spoke about the importance of both buying and exporting British. I thank him for his comments.
Standards are not abstract trade matters; they are questions of fairness, food security and moral duty. British farmers are rightly proud of producing food to some of the highest animal welfare, environmental and safety standards in the world. They do so not only to comply with the law, but because it is right. It is therefore indefensible to allow them to be undercut by imports produced to standards that would be illegal in the United Kingdom.
I am proud of the previous Conservative Government’s record on advancing animal welfare. We banned the export of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses for fattening or slaughter, under the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024; increased the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years under the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021; and, importantly, enshrined animal sentience in UK law under the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, thereby establishing the Animal Sentience Committee. That means that any new legislation that we consider must pay due regard to animal welfare. I was proud to co-sponsor the Conservative-initiated Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 to tackle the cruel puppy smuggling trade and the horrific practice of dog ear cropping.
In the United Kingdom, we have brilliant farmers who farm to the highest animal welfare standards, and we should be proud of that. As I have said many times in this House, we can be a beacon to the rest of the world. British farmers follow strict rules on banned growth promoters, on housing and welfare conditions, and on environmental protections. Those standards carry costs and responsibilities that farmers accept, because they reflect public values. The injustice arises when food produced to lower standards overseas is allowed to enter our market and compete directly with food produced under our higher rules. That does not raise global standards; it simply exports cruelty and imports unfair competition.
We Conservatives have consistently defended our standards. In 2024, when the Leader of the Opposition served as the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, she suspended trade talks with Canada, after Canada insisted on including hormone-treated beef. That decision sent a clear message that the UK will not compromise on important bans, such as bans on hormone-treated beef, ractopamine-treated pork, or—we have heard about these today—chlorine-washed poultry and bovine somatotropin-treated dairy, all of which remain illegal in the United Kingdom. Those practices merely hide substandard—unacceptable, in some cases—husbandry methods, and are not positive at all for animal or bird welfare. I was proud that the previous Conservative Government stood firm on the bans on such products in our negotiations with Canada, and I urge the current Government to maintain that firm position.
The United Kingdom has among the strictest welfare laws in the world. By contrast, countries such as Canada and the US still allow hens to be kept in battery cages. Here, 83% of eggs come from free-range or barn systems, and the Government have committed to phasing out all cages for laying hens by 2032. The Opposition have made it clear that we very much support banning cages or close confinement systems where there is clear scientific evidence that they are detrimental to animal and bird health and welfare. That is in keeping with much of the United Kingdom’s legislation on the use of cages and crates, which includes a law to ban keeping calves in veal crates, introduced in 1990; legislation banning keeping sows in close confinement stalls, introduced in 1999; and measures to ban battery cages for hens, introduced in 2012.
Under the Conservative Government, Ministers were clear that it was their ambition for farrowing crates to be no longer used for sows. Indeed, the new pig welfare code clearly states:
“The aim is for farrowing crates to no longer be necessary and for any new system to protect the welfare of the sow, as well as her piglets.”
I emphasise that last part. It is important that the industry is heard and, as we have heard today, that we have a sensible, workable, pragmatic transition that works and upholds animal welfare. Future trade deals must insist on core standards, or we risk encouraging systems that our own laws reject.
Transparency also matters; consumers should be able to see how their food was produced. In 2024, the Conservative Government consulted on improved welfare and origin labelling, but the Labour Government’s animal welfare strategy, released just before Christmas, offers only vague intentions on labelling; there is no timetable and no binding commitments. Clear, mandatory labelling would empower UK consumers and reward UK farmers who do the right thing.
The emergence in the UK of products that do not meet our animal welfare and environmental standards is potentially compounded by the alarming situation facing our national biosecurity. With disturbing reports of foot and mouth disease emerging abroad—including in Europe last year—African swine fever advancing up the continent of Europe, and the ongoing outbreaks of avian influenza and bluetongue virus in this country, we must maintain our vigilance. After raising concerns in Parliament on 17 occasions, I was pleased that the current Government finally listened and agreed to commit funding for the vital redevelopment of the Animal and Plant Health Agency’s headquarters in Weybridge, which was started by the Conservative Government. I thank APHA, which I visited again last month, for its tireless work, particularly in the face of the ongoing avian influenza situation.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I have the Animal and Plant Health Agency in my constituency—it is confusingly named the Weybridge centre, but it is actually in New Haw—I thank the shadow Minister for his advocacy on this issue, and the Government for putting in the funding for the redevelopment.
Dr Hudson
I thank my hon. Friend for his very kind intervention. He proudly stands up for that important institution, which I know the Minister has visited, as has the Minister in the other place. It is important that, cross-party, we support something that is so critical to our national security.
As we have heard today, the very real consequences of illegal meat imports for human and animal health are a disaster waiting to happen, unless the Government maintain vigilance and step up now. Our ability to detect and seize illegal meat imports at our borders is being tested to its limits. According to DEFRA, the amount of illegal meat seized between January and April 2025—72,872 kg—was close to the amount seized in the whole of 2024, which was 92,382 kg. Dover Port Health Authority alone has seized 367 tonnes since 2022. Given the ongoing threat, it is essential that sufficient funding is provided to our agencies at the border, and that routine certification surveillance and spot checks can be carried out at Dover and other ports, to prevent illegal meat and products of animal origin entering the country.
It is vital that—in addition to upholding standards, protecting our biosecurity and safeguarding animal welfare—we ensure that the United Kingdom has enough veterinary surgeons. At this point, I must declare both a professional and a personal interest: I am a veterinary surgeon, a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and a graduate of Cambridge Veterinary School. The UK does not train enough vets domestically. They play a vital role in animal health and welfare, which we have been talking a lot about today, but also in food safety, public health and disease control—all things that come into this debate on standards. That is why I am deeply concerned about the possible closure of Cambridge Veterinary School, as recommended by the council of Cambridge University’s school of biological sciences. I know the Minister is very aware of this issue, as I have raised it with her in the Chamber, and with her colleagues in DEFRA. We cannot maintain animal welfare or food security without adequate veterinary capacity, so I urge the Government to press Cambridge University to stop this short-sighted possible closure. In addition, the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 needs to be updated. Although that was mentioned in the Government’s animal welfare strategy, there was no timeline or urgency. Again, I urge the Government to act.
Sadly, the Government’s record on supporting farmers gives us cause for concern. Just look at their treatment of the sector, as instanced by the ill-judged and awful family farm tax, on which they have only partially U-turned. I do not believe that we are in the right place, and there is much more that we still need to do on that.
By permitting imports produced under weaker standards, the Government risk favouring overseas producers over British ones. Ministers say that they are passionate about animal welfare and food standards, and I take them at their word, but their record and their rhetoric tell a slightly different story. Their keenness to merge with EU standards is worrying, especially on animal welfare, given that our standards in the UK are higher. Returning to EU regulatory alignment would make us rule takers, not rule makers, preventing farmers from adopting innovations such as gene editing.
The Labour manifesto spoke about food security, but it failed to set out a clear plan to protect farmers from low import standards. The Conservative Government’s Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 laid the foundations for the development of disease and climate-resilient crops and the breeding of animals and birds that are resistant to harmful diseases such as avian influenza and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome. As I have mentioned, the landmark Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act, ended the inhumane export of live animals for slaughter or fattening. These are important achievements, yet the Opposition have concerns that these vital Acts may be repealed, watered down or weakened because of this Government’s pursuit of a reset with the EU. I hope the Minister can assure the House that those safeguards will remain intact and that we will not take a backward step on animal welfare and innovation in the agriculture and food security sectors.
We have already seen how sectors such as fishing can be treated as bargaining chips in international talks, with our UK fisheries sold away to Europe for 12 years to try—at this stage, in vain—to get access to the European defence fund. Farmers are watching closely and are understandably worried that agriculture could also be a bargaining chip. If import standards are watered down in the name of smoother trade or convenient deals, British farmers may lose out by being denied access to revolutionary tools such as gene editing and precision breeding that the EU is slow or reluctant to adopt. Moreover, animal welfare will be weakened, consumer confidence will be damaged and the long-term resilience of our food system will be jeopardised.
This is not about protectionism. It is about our values. Farmers are asking for a fair and level field on which to compete, which means import standards that reflect the standards required of British farmers and demanded by British consumers, as well as clear red lines in every trade negotiation, proper enforcement at our borders and no agreements that sacrifice agriculture for political expedience. Can I ask the Minister directly whether the Government will guarantee that no food produced to lower standards than those required of British farmers will be allowed into our market? Will they commit to not trading away our standards in future negotiations?
I would welcome the Minister’s response on the public procurement of food, which we have heard a bit about today. Sadly, the Government buying standards still have a loophole that allows public bodies to bypass high animal welfare standards on the grounds of cost. If we are to lead globally on animal welfare, we must uphold such principles here at home.
Import standards are fundamentally about trust—trust between farmers, consumers and the Government. British agriculture depends on that trust. Opposition Members will examine every agreement, every regulation and every concession that may risk undercutting our farmers and weakening our standards, or indeed compromising animal health and welfare. His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition urge the Government to support agriculture and defend the standards that the British people hold dear.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
This debate goes to the heart of something that this Government care deeply about: the future of British farming and the food on British tables. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for securing the debate, and I thank all Members for their contributions.
Let me be direct about what we are trying to balance in this area. British farmers produce most of our food: two thirds of it in 2024, which means that 65% of everything we eat is produced in this country. When it comes to what can actually be grown or reared in this country, that figure rises to over three quarters: 77%. In other words, we do not grow our own bananas or mangoes, and we cannot grow our own citrus fruits except in particularly hot weather, so we have to import them.
The hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) used the phrase “carcase balance”, which is important to think about when we talk about the balance between exports and imports. In the UK, we eat only particular bits of the animal, not all of it. It is useful to be able to export the bits that the British do not particularly want to eat, so the farmer who produces the animal gets more of a return than they would if those markets were not open.
The potential benefits for UK producers of open trading markets for such things are very great indeed. Although I will spend much of the rest of the debate talking about standards for imports, we have to remember that exports are also important to our home-grown industry. Exports are harder to gain if we are too closed about the imports we allow in our trade deals, because trade is a two-way street. I caution everyone to think about that balance, as well as thinking about what we would like to see in trade deals: it is real, it exists and we ought to take it seriously.
We have to remember that we are a trading nation. Trade gives families access to food that we cannot grow here; it keeps prices affordable; it means that we can get food out of season all year round; and it provides a safety net when supply chains are disrupted by disease, drought or conflict. Although being able to grow most of what we want to produce here is an important part of food security, so is having reasonable, predictable and acceptable access to other markets so that we can import when we have to, if there is a particular issue.
The question is not whether we trade, but how we trade and on whose terms. This Government have been clear that we will not sacrifice British standards on the altar of trade deals. All imports must meet UK food safety requirements, and that is not going to change. We have been clear that hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed chicken, which hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned, are and will remain banned in the UK. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) pointed out, that is because such treatments are designed to hide what has happened as a result of production methods. We are firm that we will not allow that. There are also potential issues with the human food chain, and we do not wish to put our consumers at risk.
We understand that there can be frustrations when farmers here are held to higher welfare standards than some competitors abroad. Sometimes there are good reasons for those differences. We have not heard about any of that in the debate today, but farmers across the world face different geographical environments, different climate conditions and different disease risks. Practices such as sow stalls and battery cages, however, are banned in this country for good reason. We will not pretend that every difference in global standards is acceptable just because it happens to be legal elsewhere; we spend our time trying to persuade other countries to see the sense in adopting our higher food production and livestock standards.
As we have said in the trade strategy, we will not lower food standards. We will continue to uphold high standards in animal welfare. We will always consider whether imports have an unfair advantage and what the potential impact of trade agreements on UK food production could be. That is why, in our trade deal with India, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire pointed out, we kept tariffs on pork, chicken and eggs: because we were concerned about the welfare standards. We used the powers we have, and we will do so again where our farmers and our values are at stake. In the India deal, we also secured commitments to co-operate on animal welfare—the first time that India has ever agreed to that in a trade deal. The independent Trade and Agriculture Commission recognised that achievement in pursuing our policy on animal welfare protections as a part of our trade deals.
We have a proud history of leading the way in ensuring the very best care for animals. In December, we published our animal welfare strategy, to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred. It will improve the lives of millions of animals in the UK. We recognise that animal welfare is a global issue, and we will continue to champion high animal welfare standards around the world, promoting robust standards nationally and internationally. Our recent trade deal with Korea includes comprehensive language on animal welfare that goes beyond anything that Korea has agreed to date. We will continue to strengthen co-operation and information exchange on this globally important issue.
In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire mentioned eggs from Ukraine. We are 90% self-sufficient in eggs in this country. The Ukrainian trade in eggs is about 1% of our supply. That is done partially as support for Ukraine’s industry and economy in the global situation in which it finds itself, at war with Russia. Despite that, I have met both Ukrainian Agriculture Ministers and they are working hard to ensure they can come into compliance with EU regulations in egg production as soon as possible. We are helping them to try to do so. The debates that we are having on animal welfare with respect to egg imports are real, and they are happening. I have raised them personally with both Ukrainian Agriculture Ministers.
Protecting standards is not enough on its own, however. We are backing British farmers to create a productive, profitable and sustainable future for farming. We believe that support is essential for our country’s economic growth and food security. Through new technology, streamlined regulation and nature-friendly farming schemes, we are helping farmers to produce food for the nation. A stronger and more productive domestic farming sector is in our national interest and will keep high-quality British food on the shelves for consumers.
The heart of our approach is working in partnership with the sector, which is why the Secretary of State and I are grateful to Baroness Batters for her recent review of farming profitability. We are taking forward a series of measures from the review to deliver practical support and long-term certainty for farmers. We recently announced a new farming and food partnership board as part of our actions. This brings farmers, processors and retailers together, because food security is not just about what happens on the farm; it is about the whole food chain, all the way from the farm to the fork. Farmers will have a seat at the table when policy is developed, and their voice will shape what the Government do.
Different parts of our food system face different challenges—the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) talked about what is happening in the dairy sector at the moment—but they also face different opportunities. Together, we intend to develop sector plans that target growth in sectors such as horticulture and poultry first, sectors in which there is significant untapped potential to increase home-grown production. This will be followed by other sectors in which there is real scope to grow more of our own food, because when British farming thrives, consumers benefit, with affordable, high-quality food on their tables.
As well as supporting producers at home, we are working to extend the international reach of British food and drink. We will continue to focus on new markets for the sector. We have 16 agrifood attachés around the world opening doors for British producers. Last year alone, their work removed barriers, creating £127 million of export value for our home-grown food producers. That includes opening British pork access to Mexico and removing costly barriers for British dairy exports to Egypt. This year, the Secretary of State and I will be leading dedicated trade missions to showcase British food and drink overseas and boost our exports. Our high standards are something we should be proud of; the reputation of our top-quality produce helps us to unlock new markets, and many of those we deal with see UK food as at the top of the quality mark and want to have access to it.
Closer to home, the majority of our agrifood trade is with the EU, including around 70% of our agrifood imports. That is why the SPS agreement with the EU to slash red tape for the businesses that trade most with our nearest neighbours is so important, as it will make agrifood trade in our biggest market cheaper and easier to engage with. The agreement will bring down costs for UK producers and remove most of the regulatory trade barriers. We have been clear about the importance of high animal welfare standards, and the EU has accepted that the UK will need to retain its own rules in some areas. As in all trade deals secured by this Government, we will maintain red lines in our negotiations.
We are a nation that has always led on animal welfare. In 1999, the Labour Government banned sow stalls before most of the rest of the world had heard of them. I understand the issues that the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) raised and I want to reassure him that we are working closely with the industry on transition in some of the areas mentioned in the current animal welfare strategy, such as banning farrowing crates and moving away from enriched cages for hens. We do not want the law of unintended consequences, but we do want increases in animal welfare. This Government will not allow that legacy to be undermined through the back door by trade policy. We will protect our farmers, uphold our standards and back British food at home and abroad. That is what food security means, and that is what this Government will deliver.
Sam Carling
I am glad to have a couple of minutes to wind up after what has been an incredibly valuable debate that has covered a whole range of topics. I start, of course, with the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), who, I think, agrees with me—there were various bits of discussion there. I referred exclusively to sow stalls in my speech; he importantly raised the issue of farrowing crates, which also remain an issue in the UK. He spoke of wanting to ensure that our farmers are not undermined, and that is the whole point of this, right? It is about ensuring that we expect at least the same standards of imports coming from overseas so that our farmers are not undercut in that way. So, yes—we agree.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) made some excellent points around the enforcement of standards and honest labelling. All Members present will know just how many emails we get from constituents on the practice of farm washing, where products that have been imported from overseas mistakenly—and, in many cases, misleadingly —try to imply that they meet British standards when they do not, with big Union Jack flags and everything, as my hon. Friend said. We need to get on top of that.
The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) talked about how we need to ensure that more of the public sector prioritises buying British, which I think is really important and something the Government have commented on. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) referred to Baroness Batters, who makes explicit and positive reference to this issue in her profitability review. The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) reinforced some of the points I made on the undercutting of farmers and spoke of how much that impacts his constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) also spoke about the importance of buying British and the critical link to the hospitality industry, including the various pubs in his constituency, the names of which he treated us to.
The comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), on the Australian trade deal were particularly useful. They also relate to what was said by the shadow Minister who spent some time talking about the Conservatives’ record. There was some good stuff in there. I will just read him this quote from Michael Gove, a former DEFRA Secretary, speaking at Conservative party conference about the previous Government:
“we negotiated poorly with Australia, and New Zealand, but particularly with Australia in defence of our farmers. In the anxiety to secure trade deals, we did not think about the long term.”
I would just encourage Opposition Members to reflect a bit on that.
I had a comment to make if I got an intervention from a Reform Member, but none have turned up, so that did not happen. If they had tried to attack us on this, I would have mentioned that the leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), went to America recently to call for economic sanctions against the UK—far from lowering tariffs for British beef exporters as we have done in our landmark economic deal with the US.
I am grateful to the Minister for speaking about the need to ensure that our farmers can export too—that is a really important part of this. She is right that there is a balance to be struck. I thank her for detailing some more of the Government’s examples of success in this area. I did not mention Ukraine specifically with regard to eggs, as I am very conscious of the issues she raises, but I am grateful to her for referring to the positive measures in terms of making some progress over there.
To reiterate, this Government have been clear that worsening our animal welfare standards and allowing imports of low-welfare goods is a red line for us. We are not going to do it, and that is positive. However, that raises a question: why do we not legislate to make sure of that? I trust this Government, but I cannot say I trust future Governments, and I do not trust the trade deals that sadly are already in place.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of import standards on the agricultural sector.